Short answer. Yes. Article 2019 provides that betting on the result of sports, athletic competitions, or games of skill may be prohibited by local ordinances. The Civil Code does not itself outlaw such betting, but it leaves the door open for a city or municipality to ban it within its own territory.
What the law says
Betting on the result of sports, athletic competitions, or games of skill may be prohibited by local ordinances.
Civil Code, Article 2019 — Betting on Games of Skill. Read the full provision →
Skill betting is not void by default
The Civil Code draws a firm line between games of chance and games of skill. Pure gambling on chance is discouraged and its debts are hard to enforce, but betting on the outcome of a sport, an athletic competition, or a game that turns on skill is treated very differently. In principle such a wager is recognised, and a loser is ordinarily bound to pay what he lost. Article 2019 sits against that background: it does not condemn skill betting itself, but identifies who may step in to forbid it if local policy calls for that.
The power is handed to local governments
The provision is short and precise: Betting on the result of sports, athletic competitions, or games of skill may be prohibited by local ordinances. Rather than impose a single national rule, the Code entrusts the judgment to the community closest to the activity. A city or municipal council, exercising its authority to legislate for the good order and welfare of its locality, may decide that betting of this kind should not be allowed within its boundaries. The decision is a matter of local policy, and the Code simply confirms that an ordinance is a valid instrument for making it.
Whether an ordinance exists changes everything
The practical effect of Article 2019 depends entirely on the local legislation on the ground. Where a valid ordinance prohibits betting on the game in question, the wager is unlawful in that place and cannot be enforced there — a winner has no standing to demand payment of something the locality has forbidden. Where no such ordinance exists, the default position holds: the loser of a bet on a game of skill remains under an obligation to pay, though a court retains the power to cut down an amount that proves excessive under the circumstances.
Check the ordinance where you are
Because the rule is local, the answer to "is this bet allowed?" can differ from one city to the next, and an ordinance binds only within the territory of the government that enacted it. Anyone entering, hosting, or relying on such a bet should know the ordinances of the specific locality where it takes place rather than assume a uniform national rule. If a dispute over payment reaches a court, the existence and terms of any local prohibition will be among the first things that decide whether the wager is enforceable at all.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Raoul B. Del Mar vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 138298, November 29, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →